Punishment vs. reform
Introduction
Punishment is the encumbrance of discipline as retribution for an offense or violation committed while reforming for a better or improved result. In an antique doctrine, criminals’ punishment often led to their complete betterment, but it wasn’t always the case. When the trial was too harsh for offenders, and depending on the kind of crime, it would only increase society’s resentment and eventually lead to more wrongdoing. This article is dedicated to examining the idea that punishment can and should reform offenders when exercised right.
Plato’s theory about punishment; that whoever commits a crime should voluntarily present himself before a court of law for his prosecution, regarding the judge as an expert who can help stop the plague of wrongdoing from occurring incurable (Plato, Gorgias, trans. Terence Irwin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979). Another founding father – G.W.F.Hegel, stated that offenders have the freedom to be corrected moreover are only considered responsible people if inflicted on them by the authorities. (G. W. F. Hegel, Elements of the Philosophy of Right, trans. H. B. Nisbet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
Reformation is a logical goal of punishment.
This is a moralized thought that seeks to emphasize repentance for wrongdoing. It also encompasses a resolve to obey the rules for morally right reasons. While some crimes call for incarceration or incapacitation, I believe that every wrongdoer deserves rehabilitation. Altering a criminal mind to affect their behavior is the best bet to incorporating convicts into society while ensuring they don’t fall back into old habits.
Prisons should ensure that their first and foremost duty is to restrain criminals while helping them change their behavior to prepare for their return to society (New York Times, James Gilligan). Unfortunately, jails happen to be least successful in carrying out the task of producing productive, law-abiding citizens. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of justice, 68 percent of inmates are released to return to jail within three years of leaving.
Nevertheless, a society remains with the right to protect itself from hostility, and to that end, the freedom to use extreme measures if the need arises. However, a harsh society must also be ready for harsh consequences. As recognized by civilized nations, prisoners should be treated humanely. Each cane increases bitterness against society instead of profiting from the inmate.
The argument for rehabilitation against incarceration
People who pose a danger to others are restrained regardless of their social standing. As a result of their restraint, some rights are held away from them as retribution. Their incarceration should make them consider their mistakes and make them remorseful. This would ensure that they do not repeat their transgressions. However, this is not the case because the predicament does not rest on the lack of punishment but rather in the lack of rehabilitation.
People, when corrected through punishment, often get nothing and progressing; it would simply make them vengeful. People study from precedent, which would only bolster their brutal ways by simulating the “teach them a lesson” reasoning adopted in the penitentiary (New York Times, James Gilligan). However, non-violent forms of rehabilitation ensure they return to society as ordinary citizens. Treating prisoners with compassion and honor increases the chance to reflect those principles once they are free.
Prisons must be used as a rehabilitation tool to hinder more crime, which is a positive influence on society. After all, the most effective way to deal with a predicament is by solving it from the source, which refers to changing the psychological response of inmates. Society would be relieved if all prisons were to provide for all the different therapy forms like psychotherapy and substance abuse.
Don’t prisoners merit to be penalized for their acts?
While prisoners deserve some degree of punishment, their imprisonment ought to be more of a hindrance for some other humans not to commit crimes while ensuring that the general public stays safe. Psychological practice should not be seen as leisure as it is eventually better for the community. The limitation of freedom for a long time is enough punishment. An offender’s sentence should match depending on the severity of the crime. Further time and actions should be taken to guarantee reform for high severity crimes. As subsequently, only reform will leave a good impact on the overall population, unlike the punishment only.
The many liberties given to inmates create another obstacle in the prison system, which sidetrack the whole reason for being there. Too many luxuries prevent inmates from reflecting on whatever wrong thing they did, and they come out of prison the very way they came in. Inmates need to realize that they are in jail out of the felony they committed and ar supposed to reform.
Why is this important?
Firstly, it would save a lot of funds. The value in the U.S. of imprisonment for state prisoners in 2015 was $31,977.65 a year (Federal Register). That’s about $87.61 a day, which is taxpayers’ money. After prisoners are released, they are most prone to engage in another crime and end up in prison again, using up even more money.
Secondly, the possibilities of a criminal committing another felony significantly decrease with rehabilitation, guaranteeing our security. Improving the system of how prisons work with a program focused more on rehabilitation, millions in tax dollars could be saved every year, not to mention the reduction in crime.
“Evil cannot drive out Evil; only light can achieve that. Hatred cannot drive out hatred; only affection can do that.” (Martin Luther King, Jr)
Conclusion
It is essential to realize the difference between punishment, bringing about reform from some non-punitive treatment bringing about an inmate’s recovery. Many philosophers agree with the first platonic claim that reformation is beneficial for society and for the offender who is being punished. Some others assert that being reformed does not necessarily reform an offender.
Still, because a changed offender will treat other people is ethically better, it is safe to declare that an essential outcome of discipline is to produce such change.
Until we understand that humans, despite all, can pursue the freeway of justice, society should not punish those who, after all, maybe helpless victims of unknown causes.
References
- Plato, Gorgias, Terence Irwin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), pp. 46-54 (= 475b-481b), at 53 (= 480b).
- W. F. Hegel, Elements of the Philosophy of Right, trans. H. B. Nisbet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 124-7, at 126.
- Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J. H. Burns and H. L. A. Hart (London: Methuen, 1982), pp. 180-1. (Published 1789)
- Herbert Morris, “A Paternalistic Theory of ” American Philosophical Quarterly 18 (1981), pp. 263-71, at 265. (Hereafter PTP.) For his earlier theory, see Herbert Morris, “Persons and Punishment.” On Guilt and Innocence (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1976), pp. 31-58.
- Jean Hampton, “The Moral Education Theory of ” Philosophy and Public Affairs 13 (1984)
- A. Duff distinguishes them. Punishment, Communication, and Community (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)
- Plato, Gorgias, 475b-481b; PTP; MET; TP 256-60.